Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf, amd: Enable AMD family 15h northbridge counters

[Stephane Eranian]

Hi,

Anybody from AMD or formerly @ AMD care to submit a libpfm4 patch
to add the Fam15th NB events?

I'd like to avoid having to type them in manually.
Thanks.

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:50:27PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
>> On 09.11.12 19:01:34, Jacob Shin wrote:
>> > The following patchset enables 4 additional performance counters in
>> > AMD family 15h processors that counts northbridge events -- such as
>> > DRAM accesses.
>> >
>> > This patchset is based on previous work done by Robert Richter
>> > <rric@xxxxxxxxxx> :
>> >
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/19/324
>>
>> The original patch set of this is here (a rebased version):
>>
>>  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rric/oprofile.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/perf-nb
>>
>> This code was tested in detail.
>>
>> > The main differences are:
>> >
>> > - The northbridge counters are indexed contiguously right above the
>> >   core performance counters.
>> >
>> > - MSR address offset calculations are moved to architecture specific
>> >   files.
>> >
>> > - Interrups are set up to be delivered only to a single core.
>>
>> So I rather suggest to make delta patches on top of my patches.
>
> Okay, if we have to, I can rework my patches on top of that, as long
> as the end result looks something like I'm suggesting above. Because
> in an upcoming processor family, there is no core performance counter
> extensions, but we do have northbridge performance counters. Meaning
> the counter address base would be c0010000 and northbridge counters
> live in c0010240, being 0x240 apart, we could make counter masks work
> but that testng awful alot of 0's for every address offset calculation
> .
>
>>
>> Peter's main concerns were that my patch set is not in the
>> Intel-uncore style. I started reworking this but was not able to
>> finish my work. This concerns still exist.
>
> Right, I considered this too, and still, I agree with you Robert that
> it makes more sense to just extend AMD's x86 PMU.
>
> 1. Because the hardware interface -- register bit fields, are alost
>    identical
>
> 2. Because the interrupt delivery mechanism is also identical --
>    delivered via same APIC interrupt vector.
>
> I think my proposed patchset on top of current Linus's tree is pretty
> minimal, and is isolated to AMD so it should be easier to swallow.
>
> Peter, could you take a look at the patchset and if you still prefer
> a intel uncore like implementation?
>
>>
>> Due to the current situation I would rather prefer to create a
>> tip:perf/amd-nb branch that includes my patches and then add all
>> further necessary steps for mainline acceptance on top of it.
>
> Okay, Peter, let me know if this is a route to go, and I'll generate
> my patchset on top of that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jacob
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/